Toward a generalizable understanding of Twitter and social media use across MOOCs: who participates on MOOC hashtags and in what ways?

Abstract

Researchers have proposed that social media provide complementary learning environments for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) that might engender participation, engagement, and peer-support. Although suggestive, nearly all of the research in this area consists of case studies, making it challenging to determine whether or to what extent findings can be generalized to MOOCs beyond those studied. This mixed methods research used data mining techniques to retrieve a large-scale Twitter data set from 116 MOOCs with course-dedicated hashtags. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, it then examined users’ participation patterns, the types of users posting to those hashtags, the types of tweets that were posted, and the variation in types of posted tweets across users. While popular narratives suggest that social media provide a space for increased participation, this study provides little evidence to support these claims in the context of Twitter as an adjunct to MOOCs. Results show that learners make up only about 45% of users and contribute only about 35% of tweets. The majority of users contribute minimally, and an active minority of users contributes the preponderance of messages. These findings do not reveal substantive evidence of learners contributing to multiple hashtags, which may suggest that learners did not find Twitter to be a useful space that provided added value or responded to their needs. Ultimately, these results demonstrate the need for greater intentionality in integrating social media into MOOCs.

Gao, F., Luo, T., & Zhang, K. (2012). Tweeting for learning: A critical analysis of research on microblogging in education published in 2008–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology,43(5), 783–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,12(7), 74–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liu, M., McKelroy, E., Kang, J., Harron, J., & Liu, S. (2016). Examining the use of Facebook and Twitter as an additional social space in a MOOC. American Journal of Distance Education,30(1), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2013). Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review of the literature on Facebook as a technology-enhanced learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted learning,29(6), 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Skrypnyk, O., Joksimović, S., Kovanović, V., Gašević, D., & Dawson, S. (2016). Roles of course facilitators, learners, and technology in the flow of information of a cMOOC. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2170.

Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2016). Scholars in an increasingly digital and open world: How do education professors and students use twitter? The Internet and Higher Education, 30, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zheng, S., Han, K., Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2016). The role of social media in MOOCs: How to use social media to enhance student retention. In Proceedings of the third ACM conference on learning @ scale, pp. 419–428.Google Scholar